Moscow, Tehran and Damascus condemn US actions

Moscow, Tehran and Damascus condemn US actions

Moscow, Damascus and Tehran agree that the US strike on Syria was an act of aggression, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said following talks with his Syrian and Iranian counterparts.

"We held important talks with my colleagues Walid Muallem and Mohammad Javad Zarif, which allowed us to compare positions in connection with the latest developments around the Syrian settlement," he said. Today, the ministers discussed, "first of all, the situation that arose as a result of US missile strikes on the airfield in Syria on April 7," he clarified.

"We reaffirmed our position, it is a common position, that we are talking about an act of aggression, a flagrant violation of the principles of international law and the UN Charter," Lavrov stressed.

The Russian Foreign Minister pointed out that there is growing evidence that the chemical incident in the Syrian Idlib was a mockery.

"Attempts to block proposals by Russia and Iran to establish an independent commission to conduct an impartial, objective investigation only indicate that the conscience of those who make such attempts is unclean," RIA Novosti cited him as saying.

According to Lavrov, Moscow, Damascus and Tehran insist on an investigation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria under the control of the OPCW.

"We insist on a thorough and unbiased investigation of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian town of Khan Shaykhun on April 4," Lavrov said, adding that the probe should be organized under the control of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

A senior fellow at the Center for the Study of the Middle East of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Candidate of Historical Sciences Elena Dunayeva, speaking to Vestnik Kavkaza, noted that an agreed statement by the Foreign Ministers of Russia, Iran and Syria is extremely important, since it can influence the formation of a more adequate US foreign policy. "According to Washington's actions, it is clear that the United States does not have a well-developed position on Syria," she explained.

"Donald Trump is striving to strengthen the US position and raise the prestige of the country after the period of President Barack Obama, when the US policy in the Middle East was unsuccessful. Now he is trying to solve problems by force, but it is not a final strategy - Trump closely watches the reaction of other players, assesses their weaknesses. Now everyone, including the United States, agrees that the main task within the Syrian crisis is a victory over the ISIS terrorist group (banned in Russia) and the statement of the ministers clearly shows that there is a clear understanding between Syria, Iran and Russia about further joint actions," Elena Dunaeva drew attention.

"Now there is a lot of speculation in the media, for example, that the Russian mission in Syria has already been completed and it will curtail its activities under the influence of the US and will abandon Iran. The statement of the foreign ministers shows that they preserve a line between Russia and Iran on support of a single Syrian state with a central authority," the senior fellow at the Center for the Study of the Middle East of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences concluded.

The deputy head of the Council of the Russian Diplomats Association, Andrey Baklanov, in turn, stressed that the position of the three countries is of a political nature. "We believe that this is a weighty, concerted step and a clearly expressed point of view. This message, in particular, to the US leadership, speaks about the need for the most serious study of the situation and measures. If we feel that this message is not sufficiently studied in the implementation of practical US policy in the Middle East, then we are likely to take other steps to prevent actions similar to the missile bombing of the airbase in Homs," he said.

"The process of settling the Syrian crisis should be manageable and gradual. We believe that when one of the sides is leading a potentially dangerous line, we must prevent further growth of the negative. And only if it does not succeed, one must consider what next steps can be taken. So far, it's a warning signal," Andrei Baklanov summed up.